There are NO professional period historians who openly advocate The Christ Myth. The ONE possible exception is Robert M. Price ... who, not surprisingly works for ... not a university where standards matter ... but the Center for Inquiry, an atheist institution. What do you think would happen if he came out in support of the evidence for Jesus as Bart Erhman did?

Price's position, is stated as:

Deconstructing Jesus, Robert M. Price

"But if that happened, we could no longer be sure there had ever been a real person at the root of the whole thing. The stained glass would have become just too thick to peer through."

"Alexander the Great, Caesar Augustus, Cyrus, King Arthur, and others have nearly suffered this fate. What keeps historians from dismissing them as mere myths, like Paul Bunyan, is that there is some residue. We know at least a bit of mundane information about them, perhaps quite a bit, that does not form part of any legend cycle. Or they are so intricately woven into the history of the time that it is impossible to make sense of that history without them. But is this the case with Jesus? I fear it is not. The apparent links with Roman and Herodian figures is too loose, too doubtful for reasons I have already tried to explain. Thus it seems to me that Jesus must be categorized with other legendary founder figures including the Buddha, Krishna, and Lao-tzu. There may have been a real figure there, but there is simply no longer any way of being sure."

That is quite a bit shy of outright claiming he was faked, and, in a rejection of historical processes, rather than seeking the truth and stating a case, essentially says, "We can't know!" Its a position that puts the analytical work of historians into grave questions. He further uses fallacious reasoning to assume, but not prove, that the existence of any similar religious narrative, no matter how uncommon, MUST be the source of the material in the gospels - its a position a bit like saying trees stole the color green from grass. There exists in his works not a single document or process in which the Apostles or Paul, would have spent the countless hours plumbing the depths of archives in religions they are hostile to, rather than establishing and running the church, and their missionary work. Its a tautology from start to finish.

Additionally, his books are published through Prometheus Books, started in 1969 by Paul Kurtz, specifically to promote anti-religious and 'secular humanist' ideologies, bypassing the traditional peer review and academic rigor that the rest of theological analysis is presented. He is, for the most part, simply ignored by the academic community as a charlatan.

Indeed, after Bart Erhman published his clarification on the historicity of Jesus, Price went into attack mode, widely embarrassing himself and questioning his 'objective/academic' basis.

"Maybe Price didn"t mean to lie, but this still strikes me as horribly irresponsible of him, making a serious accusation like that based on a second-hand report. This is something Price should have apologized for, rather than trying to defend his propagation of a falsehood. Falsehoods like this can do real harm, especially since it seems in this case that it got repeated widely before Ehrman could respond.

On a related note, there"s this blog post by Price where he claims that in Ehrman"s book "I am there painted as a blatant thought-criminal." Personally, I didn"t get that impression at all reading Ehrman. This all really does not reflect well on Price, though I was never a big fan of his in the first place."

Indeed, the broader academic community, where the ACTUAL dozens of Period Historians, fully accredited and not working for ideological institutes, mostly dismiss Price - as they do others who have followed down his path:

"Contemporary New Testament scholars have typically viewed [Christ Myth] arguments as so weak or bizarre that they relegate them to footnotes, or often ignore them completely.... The theory of Jesus' nonexistence is now effectively dead as a scholarly question."

If there is any doubt about the bizarre nature of the Christ Myth, one need look no further than the Christ Mythers on this forum. They continue to be on the side that historians sharply criticize by the dozens. They are on the side that, in Price's case, relies on innuendo and obfuscation, and no matter how masterful the presentation flowing from numerous universities that document the details of Christ, they ignore these and continue to consider those who follow these analytics as the 'unreasonable' ones.

The Christ Myth is a conspiracy Theory. Its no different than Bill Kaysing writing about the fake moon landing, and a small, and utterly intractable group of followers that simply cannot be swayed by reason.

Marshall identifies as an Evangelical Methodist.Michael Grant CBE (21 November 1914 " 4 October 2004) was an English classicist, numismatist, and author of numerous popular books on ancient historyWill Durant Contemporary?Rudolf Karl Bultmann (German: [G2;bA0;ltman]; 20 August 1884 " 30 July 1976) was a German Lutheran theologianHe is a Professor of New Testament Studies at Western Theological Seminary,Graham Norman Stanton (9 July 1940 " 18 July 2009) was a New Zealander who became a prominent and widely respected New Testament scholar in a teaching career at King's College London and as Lady Margaret's Professor of Divinity at Cambridge University.Richard Cevantis Carrier (born December 1, 1969) is an atheist activist, author, frequent public speaker, and blogger. He is a trained historian and one of the leading current proponents of the Christ myth theory.

At 8/24/2014 6:56:59 AM, neutral wrote:There are NO professional period historians who openly advocate The Christ Myth. The ONE possible exception is Robert M. Price ... who, not surprisingly works for ... not a university where standards matter ... but the Center for Inquiry, an atheist institution. What do you think would happen if he came out in support of the evidence for Jesus as Bart Erhman did?

Price's position, is stated as:

Deconstructing Jesus, Robert M. Price

"But if that happened, we could no longer be sure there had ever been a real person at the root of the whole thing. The stained glass would have become just too thick to peer through."

"Alexander the Great, Caesar Augustus, Cyrus, King Arthur, and others have nearly suffered this fate. What keeps historians from dismissing them as mere myths, like Paul Bunyan, is that there is some residue. We know at least a bit of mundane information about them, perhaps quite a bit, that does not form part of any legend cycle. Or they are so intricately woven into the history of the time that it is impossible to make sense of that history without them. But is this the case with Jesus? I fear it is not. The apparent links with Roman and Herodian figures is too loose, too doubtful for reasons I have already tried to explain. Thus it seems to me that Jesus must be categorized with other legendary founder figures including the Buddha, Krishna, and Lao-tzu. There may have been a real figure there, but there is simply no longer any way of being sure."

That is quite a bit shy of outright claiming he was faked, and, in a rejection of historical processes, rather than seeking the truth and stating a case, essentially says, "We can't know!" Its a position that puts the analytical work of historians into grave questions. He further uses fallacious reasoning to assume, but not prove, that the existence of any similar religious narrative, no matter how uncommon, MUST be the source of the material in the gospels - its a position a bit like saying trees stole the color green from grass. There exists in his works not a single document or process in which the Apostles or Paul, would have spent the countless hours plumbing the depths of archives in religions they are hostile to, rather than establishing and running the church, and their missionary work. Its a tautology from start to finish.

Additionally, his books are published through Prometheus Books, started in 1969 by Paul Kurtz, specifically to promote anti-religious and 'secular humanist' ideologies, bypassing the traditional peer review and academic rigor that the rest of theological analysis is presented. He is, for the most part, simply ignored by the academic community as a charlatan.

Indeed, after Bart Erhman published his clarification on the historicity of Jesus, Price went into attack mode, widely embarrassing himself and questioning his 'objective/academic' basis.

"Maybe Price didn"t mean to lie, but this still strikes me as horribly irresponsible of him, making a serious accusation like that based on a second-hand report. This is something Price should have apologized for, rather than trying to defend his propagation of a falsehood. Falsehoods like this can do real harm, especially since it seems in this case that it got repeated widely before Ehrman could respond.

On a related note, there"s this blog post by Price where he claims that in Ehrman"s book "I am there painted as a blatant thought-criminal." Personally, I didn"t get that impression at all reading Ehrman. This all really does not reflect well on Price, though I was never a big fan of his in the first place."

Indeed, the broader academic community, where the ACTUAL dozens of Period Historians, fully accredited and not working for ideological institutes, mostly dismiss Price - as they do others who have followed down his path:

"Contemporary New Testament scholars have typically viewed [Christ Myth] arguments as so weak or bizarre that they relegate them to footnotes, or often ignore them completely.... The theory of Jesus' nonexistence is now effectively dead as a scholarly question."

If there is any doubt about the bizarre nature of the Christ Myth, one need look no further than the Christ Mythers on this forum. They continue to be on the side that historians sharply criticize by the dozens. They are on the side that, in Price's case, relies on innuendo and obfuscation, and no matter how masterful the presentation flowing from numerous universities that document the details of Christ, they ignore these and continue to consider those who follow these analytics as the 'unreasonable' ones.

The Christ Myth is a conspiracy Theory. Its no different than Bill Kaysing writing about the fake moon landing, and a small, and utterly intractable group of followers that simply cannot be swayed by reason.

I find Price to be more reliable in general than Bart Ehrman. Ehrman is a sensationalist. He makes half of his points by innuendo, and not a few by a twisting of statistics - until he is pinned down.

Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."

Much os Erhman's earlier work is accurately described by you, and indeed, Did Jesus Exist? is the result of exactly the pinning down of Erhman and the forcing of his hand. He either had to clarify his position or risk being caste aside like Richard Carrier as an ideological zealot, and with it, the academic reputation that he clearly relishes.

Richard M. Price, in sharp contrast, took the opposite pitch. He took the ideological walk, deliberately partnering with and gaining employment within the ideological community - a post from which he continues his attacks aimed more at pleasing his employer than any kind of academic or objective assessment. As stated above, his claims are 'innuendo' in every sense of the word, and bear a strikingly similar taint to the Kennedy or Lincoln conspiracy theorist who see what they want to see rather even attempt to make an objective assessment seeking, however flawed, the truth. When the existence of any religious following within a million miles of Christ can be called the genesis of Christ, the exclusion of the Roman, Extra-Biblical, and indeed great body of evidence of Christian origin, it fits well into the realm of full on conspiracy theory.

Is why Price is pretty much universally ignored, except, like fake moon landing adherents, a few 'special' followers. The wider world recognizes a film flam artist when they see it, but, as PT Barnum was once hailed to have said, "There is a sucker born every minute," which would be aptly rejoined with, "And some unscrupulous fool willing to take advantage of them for profit."

Price happily and unashamedly fits into the later. His followers the former.

Much os Erhman's earlier work is accurately described by you, and indeed, Did Jesus Exist? is the result of exactly the pinning down of Erhman and the forcing of his hand. He either had to clarify his position or risk being caste aside like Richard Carrier as an ideological zealot, and with it, the academic reputation that he clearly relishes.

That's what he is anyhow: an "ideological zealot". I've seen him make some utterly ridiculous arguments.

Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."

Much os Erhman's earlier work is accurately described by you, and indeed, Did Jesus Exist? is the result of exactly the pinning down of Erhman and the forcing of his hand. He either had to clarify his position or risk being caste aside like Richard Carrier as an ideological zealot, and with it, the academic reputation that he clearly relishes.

That's what he is anyhow: an "ideological zealot". I've seen him make some utterly ridiculous arguments.

I don;t disagree Ana, but there is one marked difference: When BOTH were called to task, one chose academic standards, and the other .. did not.

At 8/24/2014 6:56:59 AM, neutral wrote:There are NO professional period historians who openly advocate The Christ Myth. The ONE possible exception is Robert M. Price ... who, not surprisingly works for ... not a university where standards matter ... but the Center for Inquiry, an atheist institution. What do you think would happen if he came out in support of the evidence for Jesus as Bart Erhman did?

Price's position, is stated as:

Deconstructing Jesus, Robert M. Price

"But if that happened, we could no longer be sure there had ever been a real person at the root of the whole thing. The stained glass would have become just too thick to peer through."

"Alexander the Great, Caesar Augustus, Cyrus, King Arthur, and others have nearly suffered this fate. What keeps historians from dismissing them as mere myths, like Paul Bunyan, is that there is some residue. We know at least a bit of mundane information about them, perhaps quite a bit, that does not form part of any legend cycle. Or they are so intricately woven into the history of the time that it is impossible to make sense of that history without them. But is this the case with Jesus? I fear it is not. The apparent links with Roman and Herodian figures is too loose, too doubtful for reasons I have already tried to explain. Thus it seems to me that Jesus must be categorized with other legendary founder figures including the Buddha, Krishna, and Lao-tzu. There may have been a real figure there, but there is simply no longer any way of being sure."

That is quite a bit shy of outright claiming he was faked, and, in a rejection of historical processes, rather than seeking the truth and stating a case, essentially says, "We can't know!" Its a position that puts the analytical work of historians into grave questions. He further uses fallacious reasoning to assume, but not prove, that the existence of any similar religious narrative, no matter how uncommon, MUST be the source of the material in the gospels - its a position a bit like saying trees stole the color green from grass. There exists in his works not a single document or process in which the Apostles or Paul, would have spent the countless hours plumbing the depths of archives in religions they are hostile to, rather than establishing and running the church, and their missionary work. Its a tautology from start to finish.

Additionally, his books are published through Prometheus Books, started in 1969 by Paul Kurtz, specifically to promote anti-religious and 'secular humanist' ideologies, bypassing the traditional peer review and academic rigor that the rest of theological analysis is presented. He is, for the most part, simply ignored by the academic community as a charlatan.

Indeed, after Bart Erhman published his clarification on the historicity of Jesus, Price went into attack mode, widely embarrassing himself and questioning his 'objective/academic' basis.

"Maybe Price didn"t mean to lie, but this still strikes me as horribly irresponsible of him, making a serious accusation like that based on a second-hand report. This is something Price should have apologized for, rather than trying to defend his propagation of a falsehood. Falsehoods like this can do real harm, especially since it seems in this case that it got repeated widely before Ehrman could respond.

On a related note, there"s this blog post by Price where he claims that in Ehrman"s book "I am there painted as a blatant thought-criminal." Personally, I didn"t get that impression at all reading Ehrman. This all really does not reflect well on Price, though I was never a big fan of his in the first place."

Indeed, the broader academic community, where the ACTUAL dozens of Period Historians, fully accredited and not working for ideological institutes, mostly dismiss Price - as they do others who have followed down his path:

"Contemporary New Testament scholars have typically viewed [Christ Myth] arguments as so weak or bizarre that they relegate them to footnotes, or often ignore them completely.... The theory of Jesus' nonexistence is now effectively dead as a scholarly question."

If there is any doubt about the bizarre nature of the Christ Myth, one need look no further than the Christ Mythers on this forum. They continue to be on the side that historians sharply criticize by the dozens. They are on the side that, in Price's case, relies on innuendo and obfuscation, and no matter how masterful the presentation flowing from numerous universities that document the details of Christ, they ignore these and continue to consider those who follow these analytics as the 'unreasonable' ones.

The Christ Myth is a conspiracy Theory. Its no different than Bill Kaysing writing about the fake moon landing, and a small, and utterly intractable group of followers that simply cannot be swayed by reason.

God's stupid people don't know that "Christ" means the invisible knowledge of God where ALL His stupid people exist as characters within this knowledge. Jesus is just another character within His thoughts that He used to testify to the illusions of this world and tell them that this is all but a dream of God's.

And this seems to always be the argument, as though historians simply float on their own claims of authority. But historicity doesn't work like that. It's founded on evidence. And when you go in search of this evidence, you find that it's wispy thin, and over-powered by a pure lack of evidence where evidence should be.

- There are no contemporaneous writings about Jesus.- A very prolific historian - with full credibility - focused only on the religion and politics of his day, which fully covered the time Jesus was supposed to exist, yet he never mentions Jesus at all, nor does he mention any of the major events of the New Testament. And he was the UNCLE to the actual King of the Jews after Herod.- There are no ancient Jewish writings, of any confirmed authorship, which indicate that the ancient Jews were at all familiar with Jesus.- Recent archaeological evidence suggests that Nazareth was unoccupied at the time the Bible claims Jesus existed.- The Jesus myth follows very popular mythical hero stories of the day.

And what evidence is there FOR Jesus? Five hearsay mentions (not people who ever knew him, confirmed his existence, or met anyone who knew him), who simply relate the popular tradition of belief in Jesus. The most compelling is Tacitus, and yet that reference clearly shows that it's nothing but the traditional rumor, referencing Pilate as a "procurator" (consistent with Christian tradition), when Pilate was actually a prefect. And what does this reference call Jesus? Does it call him "Jesus" or "Jesus, son of Joseph"? No! While Christians insist Tacitus must have confirmed the information through some authoritative record, it refers to Jesus as "Christus". Do Christians really think that Roman records would record that they executed "Christ"?

One must remember that historicity - aside from people obviously confirmed to exist (such as Julius Caesar) - is a matter of probability, which is why Robert Price presents both possibilities. However, when one applies an objective methodology such as calculating the probability through Bayes Theorem, (as has been done by historian Richard Carrier), the result is insufficient to support the claim that a historical Jesus actually existed.

And with all of the evidence against a historical Jesus, and the wispy thin shreds of evidence for even a possibility for a historical Jesus, the continual cry of Christians is... "but there isn't a single period historian".... hush!

Historians do not create their own authority. We know that the majority of such historians are Christians. And if their conclusions are inconsistent with the evidence, then their conclusions are highly questionable, and should be re-examined. And that - despite you're wide-eyed horror - is exactly what is happening. And it's being done by a growing number of researchers, historians and theologians. No matter how much you cry, no matter how much you whimper, the evidence IS being re-examined and should be re-examined.

At 8/25/2014 4:28:49 AM, Beastt wrote:As for the views Price holds, check his Wikipedia page... the sidebar under "Known For:"http://en.wikipedia.org...

... "Views on the historicity of Jesus, support for the Christ myth theory"

Maybe you should read them and what I wrote .. because the sources agree. Perhaps you should actually read Price before you blindly support him ... or offer up something that actually conflicts with narrative?

Again, as pointed out, this is the blind devotion that the Barnum's of the atheist world exploit for profit. Lemmings.

At 8/25/2014 4:28:49 AM, Beastt wrote:As for the views Price holds, check his Wikipedia page... the sidebar under "Known For:"http://en.wikipedia.org...

... "Views on the historicity of Jesus, support for the Christ myth theory"

Maybe you should read them and what I wrote .. because the sources agree. Perhaps you should actually read Price before you blindly support him ... or offer up something that actually conflicts with narrative?

Again, as pointed out, this is the blind devotion that the Barnum's of the atheist world exploit for profit. Lemmings.

Let's make sure this is clear. Are you stating that Robert M Price IS NOT a Jesus Mythicist?

At 8/24/2014 6:56:59 AM, neutral wrote:There are NO professional period historians who openly advocate The Christ Myth. The ONE possible exception is Robert M. Price ... who, not surprisingly works for ... not a university where standards matter ... but the Center for Inquiry, an atheist institution. What do you think would happen if he came out in support of the evidence for Jesus as Bart Erhman did?

Richard Carrier, you have been disproven.

Because you obviously don't do any research, otherwise you would know that your above claim is false, then it is pointless to talk to you about this topic. You are just too stupid to actually look at it objectively. I am not saying that looking at it objectively leads to the conclusion that Jesus is a myth (I believe it does), I am saying that if you looked at it objectively that you would not have your "facts" this wrong.

At 8/24/2014 6:56:59 AM, neutral wrote:There are NO professional period historians who openly advocate The Christ Myth. The ONE possible exception is Robert M. Price ... who, not surprisingly works for ... not a university where standards matter ... but the Center for Inquiry, an atheist institution. What do you think would happen if he came out in support of the evidence for Jesus as Bart Erhman did?

Richard Carrier, you have been disproven.

Because you obviously don't do any research, otherwise you would know that your above claim is false, then it is pointless to talk to you about this topic. You are just too stupid to actually look at it objectively. I am not saying that looking at it objectively leads to the conclusion that Jesus is a myth (I believe it does), I am saying that if you looked at it objectively that you would not have your "facts" this wrong.

Right, I am a historian by training and it is precisely the examination of the relevant historical works that caused my conversion. CLEARLY, it is you, who hate Christ, who sat through and laboriously went through the works ... and appeal to expertise fallacy ... gasp ... and yet have failed to offer even a single fact based disagreement with anything I wrote on Price.

The link, which includes commentary from two atheist PH.D PERIOD SCHOLARS, and several Academics relevant to the Historiography, of COURSE, mean less than the studious study that you have made, and yet are curiously silent on.

Go ahead, do what most atheists do. Google it. Ripe t off some atheists propaganda site, and we'll go ahead trace this back to GA Well, and ONCE AGAIN, prove that Wells had to retract his comments to retain his credentialing in ... German.

At 8/24/2014 6:56:59 AM, neutral wrote:There are NO professional period historians who openly advocate The Christ Myth. The ONE possible exception is Robert M. Price ... who, not surprisingly works for ... not a university where standards matter ... but the Center for Inquiry, an atheist institution. What do you think would happen if he came out in support of the evidence for Jesus as Bart Erhman did?

Richard Carrier, you have been disproven.

Because you obviously don't do any research, otherwise you would know that your above claim is false, then it is pointless to talk to you about this topic. You are just too stupid to actually look at it objectively. I am not saying that looking at it objectively leads to the conclusion that Jesus is a myth (I believe it does), I am saying that if you looked at it objectively that you would not have your "facts" this wrong.

Right, I am a historian by training and it is precisely the examination of the relevant historical works that caused my conversion. CLEARLY, it is you, who hate Christ, who sat through and laboriously went through the works ... and appeal to expertise fallacy ... gasp ... and yet have failed to offer even a single fact based disagreement with anything I wrote on Price.

The link, which includes commentary from two atheist PH.D PERIOD SCHOLARS, and several Academics relevant to the Historiography, of COURSE, mean less than the studious study that you have made, and yet are curiously silent on.

Go ahead, do what most atheists do. Google it. Ripe t off some atheists propaganda site, and we'll go ahead trace this back to GA Well, and ONCE AGAIN, prove that Wells had to retract his comments to retain his credentialing in ... German.

I love it when atheists think viciousness is 'evidence'.

Is Neutral still thinking that he can use himself as an "authoritative" figure?Does Neutral still think that people should take him seriously when he obviously doesn't know what he is talking about?

In science and history, there are no authorities. There are experts, but no authorities. Without using google to find a book for people to read, can you bring forth any actual evidence for the existence of a historical Jesus?

Is Neutral still thinking that he can use himself as an "authoritative" figure?Does Neutral still think that people should take him seriously when he obviously doesn't know what he is talking about?

In science and history, there are no authorities. There are experts, but no authorities. Without using google to find a book for people to read, can you bring forth any actual evidence for the existence of a historical Jesus?

Agh yeah, Ph.D's are considered PERIOD EXPERTS - and when the ENTIRE FIELD OF THEM says something that is pretty damned authoritative. The same applies to ... SCIENCE, where people with doctorates tend to hold more sway than ... some douche on the internet going, "Nuh UH!!!! I Say differently!!!"

Are we supposed to take you seriously as you dive into what has been a professional discussion by immediately attack me? Is that really all you got? The ability to be vicious retard? We're supposed to take that seriously?

You haven;t even read Price have you?

Why are you even offering a position in total ignorance atheist? Uncommon this is not. Barring anything intelligent form you, which I doubt, we are pretty much done.

Let's make sure this is clear. Are you stating that Robert M Price IS NOT a Jesus Mythicist?

I am saying this his position is that its impossible to know, and as DIRECTLY QUOTING HIM, that he think Jesus and Buddha should be in a separate category than say ... Ceasar.

I have also spelled out why that analysis is biased and unfounded.

Fell free to actually address the points spelled out, rather than try to plat games of semantic definition rather than substance.

I am sure you haven't read Price either - feel free to prove me wrong. Tell us why he is correct in his assessment, but petty much ignored outside of extremist atheist circles?

In the vast majority of ancient characters most true historians are very quick to point out that there is no line of absolute certainty. Historicity becomes a matter of probability. But while that probability works for the historicity of some, there is insufficient evidence for others. And when it comes to Jesus, the level and quantity of evidence is insufficient to establish him as a historical character.

One can bat back and forth about how many "period historians" there are, or aren't in each camp, but the bottom line - the line Christians tend to avoid - is the evidence. Historians don't look into a crystal ball to determine historicity. They must do so on the evidence. And when it comes to Jesus, the evidence simply isn't sufficient to justify the tradition of claiming him to be a historical character. He fits very well as a mythical character. The lack of documentation where it would be expected, fits with a mythical character. The lack of ancient Jewish texts which mention him (none, aside from the forged Josephus entry), fit with a mythical Jesus. The mis-matched timeline for Nazareth fits with a mythical Jesus. The parallels between the Jesus story and common hero worship stories of that time period, fit with a mythical figure, not a historical one.

We'll likely never know for certain. But that's very much the point. We don't know for certain and at this point - cannot know for certain. And yet Christians have built their entire lives and their view of the world and imaginary worlds beyond, on the basis of a supposed character who cannot even be verified to have actually existed.

Let's make sure this is clear. Are you stating that Robert M Price IS NOT a Jesus Mythicist?

I am saying this his position is that its impossible to know, and as DIRECTLY QUOTING HIM, that he think Jesus and Buddha should be in a separate category than say ... Ceasar.

I have also spelled out why that analysis is biased and unfounded.

Fell free to actually address the points spelled out, rather than try to plat games of semantic definition rather than substance.

I am sure you haven't read Price either - feel free to prove me wrong. Tell us why he is correct in his assessment, but petty much ignored outside of extremist atheist circles?

In the vast majority of ancient characters most true historians are very quick to point out that there is no line of absolute certainty. Historicity becomes a matter of probability. But while that probability works for the historicity of some, there is insufficient evidence for others. And when it comes to Jesus, the level and quantity of evidence is insufficient to establish him as a historical character.

One can bat back and forth about how many "period historians" there are, or aren't in each camp, but the bottom line - the line Christians tend to avoid - is the evidence. Historians don't look into a crystal ball to determine historicity. They must do so on the evidence. And when it comes to Jesus, the evidence simply isn't sufficient to justify the tradition of claiming him to be a historical character. He fits very well as a mythical character. The lack of documentation where it would be expected, fits with a mythical character. The lack of ancient Jewish texts which mention him (none, aside from the forged Josephus entry), fit with a mythical Jesus. The mis-matched timeline for Nazareth fits with a mythical Jesus. The parallels between the Jesus story and common hero worship stories of that time period, fit with a mythical figure, not a historical one.

We'll likely never know for certain. But that's very much the point. We don't know for certain and at this point - cannot know for certain. And yet Christians have built their entire lives and their view of the world and imaginary worlds beyond, on the basis of a supposed character who cannot even be verified to have actually existed.

The problem is that there is one guys saying this, and all the other Ph.D's disagree - and the universities are hiring them rather than Price. That should tell us something about th veracity of that 'opinion'.

Again, that this interpretation only find traction in that community of atheists, speaks to its wider intellectual veracity. William Durant and Michael grant, not too mention Bart Erhman, solidly disagree. All atheists/agnostics. The religious community universally rejects Price's claims as bizarre.

Again, you claim proof as driving you, claimed 'dozens' of experts, and yet you cherry pick your support. Price is the exception to the paradigm, and he has ... questionable employment ... skips the peer review process ... and leaves great basis for questioning his interpretation. Again, for someone who routinely screams there is no evidence, there is NO EVIDENCE to support Christian usurp age of ancient religions ... other than the fact that you could find something similar in in SOME religion SOMEWHERE to what is in Christianity. That does not prove usurpage.

Its a fanciful tale without evidence, the very think you claim to hate. Odd that.

Let's make sure this is clear. Are you stating that Robert M Price IS NOT a Jesus Mythicist?

I am saying this his position is that its impossible to know, and as DIRECTLY QUOTING HIM, that he think Jesus and Buddha should be in a separate category than say ... Ceasar.

I have also spelled out why that analysis is biased and unfounded.

Fell free to actually address the points spelled out, rather than try to plat games of semantic definition rather than substance.

I am sure you haven't read Price either - feel free to prove me wrong. Tell us why he is correct in his assessment, but petty much ignored outside of extremist atheist circles?

So your argument is built upon the fact that Price takes the ethical high-ground and is honest about the fact that we cannot know for certain? Are you willing to admit that Price officially lists himself as a Jesus mythicist? And what of the objective methodology (Bayes Theorem) - likely the most unbiased finding available to date? While nothing can absolutely say that Jesus did exist, or that he didn't, the most objective methodology yet applied, produced an outcome showing that there is insufficient evidence for Jesus to qualify as a historical character.

Any honest assessment has to relent to the fact that it is less likely that Jesus was a historical character, and more likely that he is simply a myth.

Let's make sure this is clear. Are you stating that Robert M Price IS NOT a Jesus Mythicist?

I am saying this his position is that its impossible to know, and as DIRECTLY QUOTING HIM, that he think Jesus and Buddha should be in a separate category than say ... Ceasar.

I have also spelled out why that analysis is biased and unfounded.

Fell free to actually address the points spelled out, rather than try to plat games of semantic definition rather than substance.

I am sure you haven't read Price either - feel free to prove me wrong. Tell us why he is correct in his assessment, but petty much ignored outside of extremist atheist circles?

So your argument is built upon the fact that Price takes the ethical high-ground and is honest about the fact that we cannot know for certain? Are you willing to admit that Price officially lists himself as a Jesus mythicist? And what of the objective methodology (Bayes Theorem) - likely the most unbiased finding available to date? While nothing can absolutely say that Jesus did exist, or that he didn't, the most objective methodology yet applied, produced an outcome showing that there is insufficient evidence for Jesus to qualify as a historical character.

Any honest assessment has to relent to the fact that it is less likely that Jesus was a historical character, and more likely that he is simply a myth.

His opinion is not the ethical high group simply because he holds it. That is an incredibly biased statement.

I disregard Price for all the reasons listed, including his dishonest accusation against Bart Erhman mind you *hardly the ethical high ground, and put more credence in dozens of peer reviewed works documenting an extraordinary amount of evidence that drive me to the same conclusion about Ceasar or Pelageus - that they existed.

The Pythagorean theorem really is named after a REAL person. He's not a myth, And we know this because the historical processes ... work.

Again, you give no reason anyone should reject scholarship other than to fallaciously declare anyone who supports you 'honest' - which is itself of questionable integrity.

Feel free at any point to address the criticisms leveled against Price. At any point Beasty.

By the way, I arranged for you to have a look at my Amazon pages showing my library of Kindle books. I may well have missed any response you may have provided. But I wanted to assure that you saw the list. Perhaps we can then dispense with your continual accusations?

The Pythagorean theorem really is named after a REAL person. He's not a myth, And we know this because the historical processes ... work.

Let's start with the fact that we have the Pythagorean theorem. It's not a story narrative written by a non- eyewitness.

Again, you give no reason anyone should reject scholarship other than to fallaciously declare anyone who supports you 'honest' - which is itself of questionable integrity.

How are you so capable of continually dismissing the fact that historicity MUST BE founded on evidence, and there is simply insufficient evidence to support the historical tradition (because "tradition", is what it is) of suggesting Jesus to be historical?

Feel free at any point to address the criticisms leveled against Price. At any point Beasty.

You're not criticizing Price. You're pointing out that he is honest and ethical. And as such, he does not say, "Jesus was absolutely a myth", nor does Carrier, nor would anyone mindful of the nature of historical assessment. We cannot know for certain, however Price, Carrier and several other notables, DO lean to a mythical Jesus. They can't know, so they don't claim to know. And you seem to see that as a weakness in their argument.

Meanwhile, you continually and repeatedly over-look the need for evidence, which simply does not exist.

Marshall identifies as an Evangelical Methodist.Michael Grant CBE (21 November 1914 " 4 October 2004) was an English classicist, numismatist, and author of numerous popular books on ancient historyWill Durant Contemporary?Rudolf Karl Bultmann (German: [G2;bA0;ltman]; 20 August 1884 " 30 July 1976) was a German Lutheran theologianHe is a Professor of New Testament Studies at Western Theological Seminary,Graham Norman Stanton (9 July 1940 " 18 July 2009) was a New Zealander who became a prominent and widely respected New Testament scholar in a teaching career at King's College London and as Lady Margaret's Professor of Divinity at Cambridge University.Richard Cevantis Carrier (born December 1, 1969) is an atheist activist, author, frequent public speaker, and blogger. He is a trained historian and one of the leading current proponents of the Christ myth theory.

"The truth is that virtually every modern archeologist who has investigated the story of the Exodus, with very few exceptions, agrees that the way the Bible describes the Exodus is not the way it happened, if it happened at all," Wolpe told his congregants.

Logic and Reason are the precursor to Justice.
Faith and zealotry are the precursor to Folly.

At 8/25/2014 1:13:19 PM, Beastt wrote:By the way, I arranged for you to have a look at my Amazon pages showing my library of Kindle books. I may well have missed any response you may have provided. But I wanted to assure that you saw the list. Perhaps we can then dispense with your continual accusations?

Feel free to demonstrate anything more than the ability to downed something.

Again, I do not forget the entire volume upon reading something Beasty.

Lee Strobel - whenever you wish. I was, like J Warrer Wallace, a delightful read when you reach points along the journey of conversion that are shared n both cases. yet somehow, even after 'reading' these works, you claim there is no evidence that drove them? WTF?

That you have a book on a shelf does not mean you have read it, and indeed, what you are picking up from Price ... does not demonstrate familiarity with his works and the criticism thereof.

If you want me to take you seriously, then demonstrate why I should take Price seriously as a historian. I have read him, I find his work ... colorful but ultimately unsupportable for the same reason I keep explaining.

If I paint an original work, the fact that it has the color red in it does not mean I stole it from Monet.

Price's works and claims about obscure ancient religions are wonderful in their detail of ancient and little known religions, but he fails to produce a single piece of evidence documenting usurpation. His claims that we cannot know? Again, as I stated up front, that is an assault on the historical process. Its an appeal to absurdity. Not what I would call quality history at all.

You? Well, you reject peer reviewed works, which you claim to have read but cannot offer any insight from, and support Price ... again, for reason you cannot explain other than, "He MUST be host because he agrees with me."

Agreement with your position is not a good argument. It just demonstrates that there are other conspiracy theorists out there. Point conceded.

Marshall identifies as an Evangelical Methodist.Michael Grant CBE (21 November 1914 " 4 October 2004) was an English classicist, numismatist, and author of numerous popular books on ancient historyWill Durant Contemporary?Rudolf Karl Bultmann (German: [G2;bA0;ltman]; 20 August 1884 " 30 July 1976) was a German Lutheran theologianHe is a Professor of New Testament Studies at Western Theological Seminary,Graham Norman Stanton (9 July 1940 " 18 July 2009) was a New Zealander who became a prominent and widely respected New Testament scholar in a teaching career at King's College London and as Lady Margaret's Professor of Divinity at Cambridge University.Richard Cevantis Carrier (born December 1, 1969) is an atheist activist, author, frequent public speaker, and blogger. He is a trained historian and one of the leading current proponents of the Christ myth theory.

"The truth is that virtually every modern archeologist who has investigated the story of the Exodus, with very few exceptions, agrees that the way the Bible describes the Exodus is not the way it happened, if it happened at all," Wolpe told his congregants.

Is Neutral still thinking that he can use himself as an "authoritative" figure?Does Neutral still think that people should take him seriously when he obviously doesn't know what he is talking about?

In science and history, there are no authorities. There are experts, but no authorities. Without using google to find a book for people to read, can you bring forth any actual evidence for the existence of a historical Jesus?

Agh yeah, Ph.D's are considered PERIOD EXPERTS - and when the ENTIRE FIELD OF THEM says something that is pretty damned authoritative. The same applies to ... SCIENCE, where people with doctorates tend to hold more sway than ... some douche on the internet going, "Nuh UH!!!! I Say differently!!!"

Again, Richard Carrier. All you are doing is showing that you are a complete idiot here.

Are we supposed to take you seriously as you dive into what has been a professional discussion by immediately attack me? Is that really all you got? The ability to be vicious retard? We're supposed to take that seriously?

You haven;t even read Price have you?

Have I talked about Price yet? No. I have simply pointed out that you are an idiot. I bet you haven't actually paid attention to what is being said.

Why are you even offering a position in total ignorance atheist? Uncommon this is not. Barring anything intelligent form you, which I doubt, we are pretty much done.

Have with your angry 'authority'. Cartman.

I find it hilarious that you decide not to bring up any evidence, and result to insults. You do realize that the more you talk, the more people realize just how stupid you are, right?

At 8/25/2014 1:13:19 PM, Beastt wrote:By the way, I arranged for you to have a look at my Amazon pages showing my library of Kindle books. I may well have missed any response you may have provided. But I wanted to assure that you saw the list. Perhaps we can then dispense with your continual accusations?

Feel free to demonstrate anything more than the ability to downed something.

What do you mean "downed something"?

Again, I do not forget the entire volume upon reading something Beasty.

But it does appear that you remember only what you wish to remember, and digest only what you care to digest, even if you have to read into a work, rather than reading it as it is written.

Lee Strobel - whenever you wish. I was, like J Warrer Wallace, a delightful read when you reach points along the journey of conversion that are shared n both cases. yet somehow, even after 'reading' these works, you claim there is no evidence that drove them? WTF?

I claim that they have no more objective evidence than has already been discussed (ad nauseum), and that the bulk of their work consists of pleas to emotion.

That you have a book on a shelf does not mean you have read it, and indeed, what you are picking up from Price ... does not demonstrate familiarity with his works and the criticism thereof.

Your "criticism" is simply the acknowledgement which I have referenced several times - that he does not make a statement of absolute knowledge. And yet, you continually avoid telling me that he does not identify himself as a Jesus Mythicist, (which clearly he does), apparently because that might violate the safe harbor you have crafted for yourself.And while I readily admit that owning a book doesn't mean it has been read, and reading book does not mean it has been fully understood, I would also ask that you take a look at the history here.I made statements of a theological nature and you immediately (it was like my second or third day on the site), proclaimed me as knowing nothing about the subject. (You were wrong).I then stated that I had read several books on the subject and you called me a liar. I then listed 3 such books, and you insisted I was wrong about the authorship. (You were wrong).I showed you the very book you INSISTED didn't exist, by sending you a link to the Amazon page. (You never admitted you were wrong, and never apologized).Then I typed a list of books which I have read in regard to theology, and you again called me a "liar", and then began playing all kinds of games with the numbers. Fifty-five books on theology became 22 books on Jesus historicity. Then it became 22-books in total. Then it became 55-books read over a period of 2-weeks (rather than the actual 11-years as I had stated).So I have now given you copies of my Kindle purchases, and you're jumping to the claim that I haven't read the book.

Do you not see the continual spiraling down of your resistance to accepting the truth? You spend most of your debate time trying to argue against a growing pile of evidence against your claims - claims which you had no justification for making in the first place. And yet you wonder why people tire of you, and become abusive?

If you want me to take you seriously, then demonstrate why I should take Price seriously as a historian.

So first you insinuate that he's not a Jesus mythicist, and then when I try to pin you down on that, you abandon that line and want to pick on his qualifications as a historian? You keep jumping from this sinking ship, and then right back to it. HISTORIANS MUST BASE THEIR FINDINGS ON EVIDENCE! I grow very tired of the need to write in upper-case, simply to have a hope that you might actually read what has been written (time, and time, and time again)!

I have read him, I find his work ... colorful but ultimately unsupportable for the same reason I keep explaining.

And yet, you do not have the evidence necessary to support the assessment which you prefer. I find his writing to be tiring to read. He's so full of information, caveats, stories and tangents, that it can be difficult to follow the thread of discussion through his work. But that does nothing to degrade the quality of the information he has to present.

If I paint an original work, the fact that it has the color red in it does not mean I stole it from Monet.

That's a very nice little story, but I fail to see how it relates to the discussion at hand.

Price's works and claims about obscure ancient religions are wonderful in their detail of ancient and little known religions, but he fails to produce a single piece of evidence documenting usurpation. His claims that we cannot know? Again, as I stated up front, that is an assault on the historical process. Its an appeal to absurdity. Not what I would call quality history at all.

Most certainly not. It's a recognition of the historical process. Are you unaware that more often than not, historicity is simply a statement on the level of evidence available? We can't know for certain that Socrates existed, but given the nature of the character, the claims made of that character, and the evidence, it is found more likely that he did, than he didn't. And you find such an assessment to be an "assault on the historical process"? That's the honesty inherent in any historical assessment done with integrity.

You? Well, you reject peer reviewed works, which you claim to have read but cannot offer any insight from, and support Price ... again, for reason you cannot explain other than, "He MUST be host because he agrees with me."

I'm growing very tired of your insistence that I've not presented any insight from peer-reviewed works. Which works, specifically, do you have in mind? If I'm not quoting an author, word-for-word, I'm not offering insight? Your claim is simply fallacious and ridiculous. Many times I have provided such insight, and you simply dismiss it. You dismiss my observation of C.S. Lewis as "emotionalism", and yet never seem to offer anything to the contrary.

Agreement with your position is not a good argument. It just demonstrates that there are other conspiracy theorists out there. Point conceded.

Thank you. Now admit to me that Price counts himself as a Jesus mythicist, and we'll consider that progress.

At 8/25/2014 4:22:13 AM, Beastt wrote:And this seems to always be the argument, as though historians simply float on their own claims of authority. But historicity doesn't work like that. It's founded on evidence. And when you go in search of this evidence, you find that it's wispy thin, and over-powered by a pure lack of evidence where evidence should be.

- There are no contemporaneous writings about Jesus.- A very prolific historian - with full credibility - focused only on the religion and politics of his day, which fully covered the time Jesus was supposed to exist, yet he never mentions Jesus at all, nor does he mention any of the major events of the New Testament. And he was the UNCLE to the actual King of the Jews after Herod.- There are no ancient Jewish writings, of any confirmed authorship, which indicate that the ancient Jews were at all familiar with Jesus.- Recent archaeological evidence suggests that Nazareth was unoccupied at the time the Bible claims Jesus existed.- The Jesus myth follows very popular mythical hero stories of the day.

And what evidence is there FOR Jesus? Five hearsay mentions (not people who ever knew him, confirmed his existence, or met anyone who knew him), who simply relate the popular tradition of belief in Jesus. The most compelling is Tacitus, and yet that reference clearly shows that it's nothing but the traditional rumor, referencing Pilate as a "procurator" (consistent with Christian tradition), when Pilate was actually a prefect. And what does this reference call Jesus? Does it call him "Jesus" or "Jesus, son of Joseph"? No! While Christians insist Tacitus must have confirmed the information through some authoritative record, it refers to Jesus as "Christus". Do Christians really think that Roman records would record that they executed "Christ"?

So you have now, as you have in the past, written off the references by Tacitus as "traditional rumor". A Roman senator and a historian relied upon information he received from a small, inconsequential sect, i. e. fables and common gossip! This is the quote:

"Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace."

Is that true or not? Tacitus is talking about 64 AD. We need to know if there was a group of people in a "class" who had been in existence long enough to be "hated".

"Christus, from whom the name had its origin",

But He didn't exist, right?

"suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus,"

You object to the words "our procurators". You seem to think that when determining the exact position, the exact Roman political office, that a man held, a Roman senator and historian relied mostly on common Christian gossip.

"and a most mischievous superstition",

"A mischievous superstition", but I'll rely heavily upon what they say in recording the history. If they tell me that Pilate was a procurator, then that's what I'll call him."

"thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Jud"a, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind."

Do Christians really think that Roman records would record that they executed "Christ"?

What do you think the records would say?

"Pilate saith unto them, What then shall I do unto Jesus who is called Christ? They all say, Let him be crucified."

Would "Jesus, also called Christ" suit you? ~ shaking my head ~. Pilate said, "Jesus who is called Christ" - then Tacitus says "Christus, from whom the name had its origin ... " - and you've decided that Tacitus improperly worded it!

Here's a better scenario. Tacitus was probably born around AD 55, about 22 years after the supposed execution of the mythological Jesus.

We'll say that that his first decent memories of hearing about this event could have come from eye-witnesses in AD 63, when he was 8 yrs old. An eye-witness who was 15 at the time of the supposed crucifixion would have then been a whopping 45 years old. Suppose numerous folks told him about it. Is that possible?

Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."